On restrictions on the use of non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses in English Takanobu%Akiyama% Nihon%University% [email protected]% This paper deals with non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses (NIRCs) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by the health authority, has been commissioned). The purpose of this paper is twofold: (i) to give an accurate description of the semantic properties of the NIRC on the basis of the British National Corpus, and (ii) to elucidate restrictions on the use of this construction. My corpus-based approach will clarify four types of shades of meaning expressed by this construction are equal to those expressed by IS TO construction (i.e. plan, necessity or appropriateness, future in the past, and possibility). I will stress that NIRCs are used only when they have one notional category (i.e. notional subject/object), which is highly likely to be a notional subject of the infinitive, and denote one of the shades of meaning rather than causality. Keywords: non-restrictive clauses, infinitival relative clauses, meaning of to-infinitives, the British National Corpus 1. Introduction This paper deals with the non-restrictive infinitival relative clause (henceforth, NIRC) in English (e.g. An independent review, to be funded by Ealing council and Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013 edited by Lauren Gawne and Jill Vaughan! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA Ealing health authority, has been commissioned. (BNC: A96 443))1. The discussion of NIRCs has been neglected by linguists, although there have been many publications on restrictive infinitival relative clauses (e.g. There are a lot of things to think about)on the basis of various approaches (c.f. Berman 1974; Bhatt 2006; Fleisher 2011; Geisler 1998; Kjellmer 1975; Nagahara 1990; Rohdenburg 1995). This paper will bring us one step closer to a full characterisation of the nature of the NIRC in English through a careful and extensive empirical scrutiny of the construction. The main purposes of the following discussion are: to give an accurate description of the semantic properties of the NIRC on the basis of corpus data, and to shed light on restrictions on the use of this construction. The organisation of this paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to an examination of previous analyses of the NIRC in English. I will argue that previous analyses are inadequately supported because their data sets are too small to bear out their explanations. Section 3 is concerned with the semantic properties of NIRCs: I will discuss the shades of meaning expressed by NIRCs in English, dividing them into four types. The empirical validity of my analyses in this and the next section rests on the corpus data which I have extracted from the British National Corpus (BNC). Section 4 discusses the syntactic variations of NIRCs in English. I will show that NIRCs can occur in both the passive and active voice, contrary to a previous analysis which contends that NIRCs can only occur in the passive voice. In section 5, our attention will be directed to the explication of the mechanisms which trigger the use and interpretation of NIRCs. In order to shed light on this problem, I will take into account how the hearer parses a to-infinitive clause as an NIRC. Section 6 concludes this paper with a brief summary. 2. Previous analyses of NIRCs NIRCs have been paid little attention in research on relative clauses. There have been only a handful of previous analyses of this construction, but all of them seem to be inadequate in various respects. In this section, I will examine these previous analyses and point out their inadequacies. 1 Here and elsewhere in this paper, italics in corpus sentences quoted from the BNC are my own insertions, used to highlight the relevant parts of the examples. ~ 336 ~ Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA Huddleston (1971: 251) gives an account of the syntactic restrictions on NIRCs. His corpus data contains 36 examples of restrictive IRCs but only two of NIRCs, as in: (1) In the uncomfortable region from 10 to 4 ˚K, helium gas thermometry is often used, and below 1˚K magnetic methods, to be explained later in this chapter, are employed. Huddleston (1971: 251) explains that the non-restrictive infinitive clause is possible ‘only when the subject is relativised: thus the restrictive the man to see is Smith is grammatical, but not the non-restrictive *the man, to see, is Smith.’ Quirk et al. (1985: 1270) state that non-restrictive postmodification can be achieved by an infinitive clause and present the following example: (2) This scholar, to be found daily in the British Museum, has devoted his life to the history of science. [‘who can be found daily in the British Museum…’] According to Quirk et al., a nonrestrictive infinitive clause such as (2) should correspond to a relative clause where the relative pronoun is subject (i.e. who in (2)). Therefore, the NIRC in (2) cannot be converted to the active voice as follows: (3) *This scholar, to find daily in the British Museum, has devoted his life to the history of science. Nagahara (1990: 62-3), referring to the above comments by Quirk et al., goes so far as to suggest that the antecedent of the NIRC seems to be restricted to the subject of a passivised to-infinitive (i.e. a passivised NIRC). Finally, Emonds (1979) gives a more detailed analysis of NIRCs and presents the following examples of this construction: ~ 337 ~ Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA (4) a. *Mary and John, (for someone like you) to teach algebra to, are now coming downstairs. b. The girls (for someone like you) to teach algebra to are now coming downstairs. c. This room, for you to teach algebra in, adjoins mine. d. ? This room, to teach algebra in, adjoins mine. (Emonds 1979: 237) Emonds states that ‘infinitival appositive relatives 2 exist just when finite appositive relative clauses of the form “WH-morpheme + finite form of be + infinitive” exist’. This amounts to saying that the difference in the acceptability judgments between (4a) and (4c) is analogous to the differences between the finite non-restrictive relative versions, as in (5a) and (5b) below: (5) a. *Mary and John, who are (for someone like you) to teach algebra to, are now coming downstairs. b. This room, which is (for you) to teach algebra in, adjoins mine. (Emonds 1979: 237.) However, I suspect that Emonds’s acceptability judgment may not be generalisable, because my participants (native speakers of English) are unanimous in not accepting sentence (4c). To examine the empirical validity of my participants’ acceptability judgments of sentence (4c), I searched my corpus data for just such a syntactic sequence ‘, (comma) + for + noun/pronoun + to- infinitive’. The BNC contains 359 examples of this sequence, but only one of them can be interpreted as an example of an NIRC (see (6a)): the others are concerned with other grammatical constructions: an adverbial clause (see (7a)), a complement of a noun (7b), an extraposed subject of the sentence (7c), etc. Here and elsewhere in this paper, examples marked with an apostrophe signify a finite relative clause, which corresponds to NIRC examples from the BNC. 2 Emonds’s term ‘infinitival appositive relatives’ refers to NIRCs. ~ 338 ~ Selected papers from the 44th ALS conference – 2013 AKIYAMA (6) a. Peace and tranquility reign in the well-kept grounds, which offer numerous tables and chairs in pleasant shady corners, for guests to relax in. (BNC: CH5 4489) [NIRC] a’. = ... in pleasant shady corners, in which guests can relax.3 (7) a. In one method, the recordings give dialogues, without pauses, for learners to study and imitate. (BNC: H0Y 1167) [adverbial] b. There is a general tendency, Marx claimed, for wages to stick at a general exploitative level, except when some skills are temporarily scarce. (BNC: EDH 748) [complement] c. It is better, though, for you to restrain your natural impatience to make a start, and take time instead to read the book of instructions before you begin pressing any of the buttons. (BNC: GBP 173) [extraposed subject] To summarise, the previous analyses of the NIRC suggest that this construction is restricted to the passive voice (Nagahara 1990) and is possible only when the subject is relativised (Huddleston 1971; Quirk et al. 1985). Their analyses, however, are inadequately supported because their data sets are too small to bear out their explanations. They overwhelmingly hinge on linguists’ introspection and intuition for the explication of the nature of NIRCs. Furthermore, they fail to give an account of semantic properties of NIRCs. In what follows, I will thus take a corpus-based approach in order to construct a more convincing characterisation of NIRCs from semantic and syntactic points of view. 3 One might say that the infinitival clause for guests to relax in in (6a) should be parsed as an adverbial clause, because there seems to be a purposive meaning in the clause. This infinitival clause, however, also functions as a “supplementary explanation” of the antecedent noun (i.e. pleasant shady corners), which is one of the main functions of non-restrictive relative clauses